In what I thought to be a rather bland and uninspiring speech, here is what
I heard him say about each of the foregoing, and what he said on other topics
and mantras he touched on as I heard him:

he didn't mention structural unemployment, either specific or general
manufacturing and service job creation near-term programs; or repatriation
of manufacturing jobs in any specific 'program-like' way;

with respect to jobs in the context of defense spending cuts, he alluded
to those in passing when he mentioned the so-called 'sequester' that would
see, based on a law passed by Congress in 2011, about $1 trillion in budget
cuts that would automatically go into effect this year if agreement now
can't be reached on a plan to cut the federal deficit. He said 'sequester
cuts' would cost 'hundreds of thousands' of military, education, energy
and medical research jobs;

he discussed deficit cuts, but always in aggregate (over a period of years)
numbers - for example $1.5 trillion, where he failed to mention that amount
was scheduled over a period of 10 years;

he talked about technology and automation in the context of long-term
job creation, citing an innovation center that has been developed in Youngstown,
Ohio, and saying that he wanted to introduce a program that would develop
15 more such centers (3 that he was directing to be built immediately)
to further the application of technology and automation (he mentioned 3D
manufacturing) to manufacturing - which I took he seems to think will create
meaningful growth in manufacturing jobs in the United States in the future. If
you read this Newsletter you know my view is that technology resultant
automation indeed will increase manufacturing productivity, but will do
that at the expense of Main Street manufacturing jobs, not add to them.
Certainly it will create manufacturing related jobs for those highly trained
and skilled individuals who contribute to the technological development
of new manufacturing equipment and processes, but those individuals are
likely to be comparatively few in number;

he did talk about an infrastructure program that would put people to work
initially repairing about 70 bridges across America, and made general statements
about the importance of good infrastructure and encouraging private capital
participation in infrastructure rehabilitation programs;

he also talked about a program that would see 20 'depressed areas' in
the U.S. employ people in rebuilding what I took, perhaps in error, to
be houses in those areas;

he emphasized 'strengthening the middle class', and spoke about wealth
disparity in the context of a continued 'Robin Hood' mantra of taking from
the wealthy and giving to Main Street through increasing taxes paid by
the wealthy. While this in some respects admirable it is somewhat Don
Quixoteish given the right-wing Republican attitudes to this. Moreover,
given the wide wealth disparity in the U.S., as I see things 'the few'
don't have enough to accommodate through increased taxation any meaningful
improvement in the living standard of 'the many';

while he did not use the term 'energy self-sufficiency' (or if he did
I didn't hear it) he spoke at length about energy in the contexts of U.S.
oil and gas production increases going forward, and the use of batteries
and renewable energy to reduce - if not eliminate - car gasoline consumption.
He also mentioned policy change with respect to oil and gas permitting,
and a U.S. objective of cutting energy costs by 50% over time. All admirable
goals;

he spoke of education reform, where improved education aimed at increasing
employment opportunities for high school graduates and college graduates
alike - a long-term proposition - is important to the long-term well-being
of the U.S. economy. There can be no doubt that improving U.S. education
can only be positive in relative terms. However, in the end I believe that
as increased technological change takes hold in all economic sectors, the
'best and brightest' are increasingly favoured - and education itself will
become more Darwinian over time, leaving more and more people less able
to cope economically;

with respect to pre-school education, he declared that he was interested
in introducing a program that would ensure first-class pre-school education
is made available to every child; and,

he spoke about comprehensive immigration reform, climate change, and gun
safety stressing their importance as he sees things.

All in all, I did not come away from this year's State of The Union speech
hearing a 'take-charge' leader 'take-charge', and did not hear anything I thought
was particularly new that is going to result in any near-term, or long-term,
economic panacea for America.

Comments and opinions expressed in these commentaries are those of the authors.
They do not constitute individualized investment advice, are provided "as
is", may change without prior notice, and are used at your own risk. The information
and content provided or referenced may be incomplete, inexact, or incorrect.
Your use of these commentaries is subject to the Economic
Straight Talk Terms of Use and Legal
Disclaimer